When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Don't be a bloke. Have some smoke, you broke joke. Take a toke.
Also, stop buying bulk ammo. It's cutting into your photo hobby!
Honestly, I bought the 40D eight years ago. I think a new body every eight years is pretty frugal... Hell, I am still on LR1.1!
Well I did buy my 1D Mark IIn back in 2009
Kind of ragret buying it due to the old NimH battery technology it uses. can't really spontaneously go out and shoot because the batteries will be completely self discharged after 2-3 weeks sitting in my shelf.
It's like any Nickel Metal-hydride battery, they will self discharge at a fast rate.
What can you do, that camera came out in 2005, way before low self discharge NimH batteries like the eneloops were available and I think lithium ion wasnt readily available (or expensive)
Then I am DEFINITELY looking forward to what you have to say about the 6D since I'm working on upgrading from a 40D as well. Really looking forward to being able to use a setting higher than ISO800 without ruining the image with noise.
On another note, I decided to keep the 70-200 and run it with an adapter. It's an excellent lens that I really want to keep around and I don't have to sell it so I'll keep it.
SamDoe,
I have not a ton of time to really test out the new 6D, and am awaiting the LR6 update to be able to see what I can really do with the RAW files (using Canon DPP for now), but I am 98% impressed with the camera as an upgrade form the 40D. The 2% are not end result issues in terms of PQ, but fit and function issues adjusting to the new body.
The biggest plus I am have noticed, and from what you said it will be a huge plus for you too, is the ability to use high ISO without a ton of noise.
Here are two examples (form the Barrett Jackson Auction):
ISO 400, f4 (I should have stopped down more to get the Porsche badge and the actual rotor both in focus.... ) (click to enlarge)
(scaled down jpg at 3mb size)
And ISO 800, f4. Dark areas look excellent even at ISO800, I can't see any discernible noise... Honestly, I left the camera at ISO800 for most of the shots here because the lighting sucked inside the show tents, plus I wanted to see what the overall experience would be in terms of PQ at 800.
(scaled down jpg at 3mb size)
So, about those 2% little niggles. I have to be honest and say that the feel of the shutter button and control wheels feels cheaper to me than on the 40D. I know the sensation-less shutter (no actual feel of the half press or full press) is by design and is supposed to be the higher end shutter feel, but I got used to the positive feel of the shutter on the 40D. I probably already am used to the new shutter, but it was off putting at first. The control wheels (both) feel plasticky in their movement compared the more mechanical/metal feel of the actual detentes on the wheels for the 40D. Hold one, play with the control wheels, you will feel the difference. At the end of the day, these are minor and insignificant in terms of the end result, but worth mentioning as they really came across in my initial impression. Also, and maybe this is the 24-105f4 lens, but it seems a tad slow to find focus in non-ideal contrast situations with the center focus point (I am set to use the center point and then I recompose). Slower focus on the 6D was a known issue and most of what I shoot is non-moving so it's not a real issue for me (and you may have a different, faster lens) but it, too, is worth mentioning.
Finally, I am having a really hard time getting used to using my grip hand to activate playback based on the button location on the rear of the body. I guess years of using my left hand to do it will eventually be overcome but I fudge it every single time...
As a plus, I love the locking mode selector dial. I never have to worry about the camera bag accidentally rotating it off my last setting as I pull the body from the bag.
Finally, the 6d with 24-105f4L weighs 1514 grams and the 40D with 17-55 f2.8 weighs 1508g so while there is not much of a difference on paper, the 6d feels lighter in the hand (so much so that I initially didn't believe the scale and weighed them twice).
Let me know if there are any specific things you want more info on, or test shots dark room at various ISOs, etc.), etc...
I had the same 24-105 lens and didn't have any issues with it finding focus on the 40D. The 6D is known to have a less than optimal AF system so that's not entirely surprising. Hopefully the next version improves on that.
Would love to see a dark shot at higher ISO though (like 3200 and up) if you can.
I sold my 24-105 yesterday so at this point, I'm fairly committed to switching to Sony (going to keep 70-200 2.8 and 50 1.4 to run with adapter since Sony has no equivalents yet) and am on the lookout for good condition used FE lenses though I could be convinced to get a Canon body again for the right price.
I've so far lost $0 on what I bought my gear for and I sold my 24-105 for ~$100 more than they go for online so I can buy another if I want and still be up money.
I do - I got it a year ago. It's sharp enough and I like it. It does have some pretty bad distortion, which gets worse based on subject matter. For the architecture stuff I do it can get pretty troublesome and I'll have to do a fair amount of correction in LR/PS. Is it a dealbreaker? For the price (I paid $270) no, it is not a dealbreaker. I had zero regrets about buying / using it.
I do - I got it a year ago. It's sharp enough and I like it. It does have some pretty bad distortion, which gets worse based on subject matter. For the architecture stuff I do it can get pretty troublesome and I'll have to do a fair amount of correction in LR/PS. Is it a dealbreaker? For the price (I paid $270) no, it is not a dealbreaker. I had zero regrets about buying / using it.
Good to know, this lens is next on my list after saving up for a 6D.
agreed on the mustache distortion... I had this lens, I sold it when I picked up the Sigma 12-24mm DG HSM... the only time I wished I still had it was when I went up to the mountains to do astrophotography...
(old picture)
this log was NOT bent like that
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/63271580@N00/6361246049/in/photolist-aP6UPe-aG83Q2-f2BCUU-doaHoH-a9gCnv-dkqzWf-bpUXzD-fqYvjw-befemB-fsJy9L-bStsmR-c5QeQo-aDMuGc-aDZexS-ahhM6p-amsX6u-ampvqz-amQctF-gbiU9v-e4Rqfb" title="English Bay, Vancouver BC/Canada"><img src="https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6031/6361246049_2db72afffc_b.jpg" width="1024" height="680" alt="English Bay, Vancouver BC/Canada"></a>
but at the same time, had I shot the above picture with the camera level'd, the distortion would (or should) have been a lot less. And for me, that's how I do most of my landscapes these days. Obviously an "UP" shot on architectural capture, you can't "level" the camera (sensor)
I do - I got it a year ago. It's sharp enough and I like it. It does have some pretty bad distortion, which gets worse based on subject matter. For the architecture stuff I do it can get pretty troublesome and I'll have to do a fair amount of correction in LR/PS. Is it a dealbreaker? For the price (I paid $270) no, it is not a dealbreaker. I had zero regrets about buying / using it.
Thanks!
I saw one come up for sale at $270 and was debating getting it. That distortion is pretty wicked though...I would use it for landscape and astro stuff, not for architecture. Sounds like a good one to snag if I can get it!
^ No clue, I'm going Sony so I'm looking for an E mount lens.
In another update, I will probably be buying an A7II this week. I decided to get a used one so I could sample the system to see if it was a good fit for me. If not, I can offload it without much, or any, loss.
Now to find a good lens to go with it...probably going to pick up the Zeiss 16-35 and Zeiss 55 1.8 along with an EF-E adapter to run my 70-200L.
Question, would it be better to get the canon one with the AE chip? I figured it would make metering easier since it reports back the exif info
I'm seeing it for $400-500 with the chip? Hmm I don't know. I sort of feel like I would not spend that much on this lens. Shots generally come out brighter than intended when on Aperture mode, but it's something you get used to. Just dial back the exposure compensation a few ticks.
...and here it is! The IQ out of the combo of the A7II and the Zeiss 55mm is AMAZING. My jaw literally dropped when I did a 100% crop of an image. Also, the dynamic range is orders of magnitude better than my 40D and the high ISO performance is stellar as well, I could use ISO 12800 pretty safely at normal sized prints. The size, weight, and overall form factor is awesome and this will be a joy to take with on hikes and stuff once I get a wider lens for it.
I was able to do a ~3-4EV push in LR without much noise introduction and easily utilize the high ISO images at ISO 12800. In comparison, the 40D could do maybe a 2/3EV push and I had to stay below ISO 800 or risk excess noise in the image.
Saw something on Petapixels in a similar vein today...
the comparison is such bull shit. why didn't he compare the cameras from different angles? in order to fit a full frame sensor in there, the width has to be so big and still have areas for buttons, dials etc etc.. but if you could actually see side by side pictures of the cameras from the front, that's where you see the big difference. But yet, the article failed big time to point this out.
i noticed that too. the height of the mirrorless is what makes the difference since there is no MIRROR
But i CAN somewhat see his point with using a mirrorless body with larger 2.8/"PRO" glass negating some of the smaller size benefit of a mirrorless camera.
i noticed that too. the height of the mirrorless is what makes the difference since there is no MIRROR
But i CAN somewhat see his point with using a mirrorless body with larger 2.8/"PRO" glass negating some of the smaller size benefit of a mirrorless camera.
yes, but that's stupid to assume that EVERYONE is buying mirrorless cameras for the size. I mean, it helps in some situations, like when I'm traveling, and I DO appreciate it, but why does he just assume it's on the top of everyone's list?
I would sure hope that a FF camera released Late 2014 would have better DR and high ISO than a 1.6x crop camera released late 2007
And your hope would come true. I'm just excited to have a modern camera again.
Originally Posted by stogie1020
Saw something on Petapixels in a similar vein today...
That was one of the most misleading articles I've ever read lol. The mirrorless isn't necessarily shorter in length but it's for sure shorter in height and half the weight. That's not something you can really fake.
Lenses are governed by the laws of physics and Sony makes some of the biggest ones (for whatever reason) but they are high quality, excellent performers, and come with a price tag to match. I think mirrorless is here to stay and, other than the shitty menu system, I'm happy with making the change.
Originally Posted by Mizouse
i noticed that too. the height of the mirrorless is what makes the difference since there is no MIRROR
But i CAN somewhat see his point with using a mirrorless body with larger 2.8/"PRO" glass negating some of the smaller size benefit of a mirrorless camera.
Right, but you don't HAVE to use that glass to get exceptional photos just like you don't on a normal dSLR. Having the high ISO performance kind of negates the need to have super fast glass anyway. The only benefit you're losing out on is the background blur, though there are smaller mid range primes that can provide that for you.
yes, but that's stupid to assume that EVERYONE is buying mirrorless cameras for the size. I mean, it helps in some situations, like when I'm traveling, and I DO appreciate it, but why does he just assume it's on the top of everyone's list?
That is true, but when Sony is marketing that is a smaller form factor and then puts out lenses that null that "positive". Or you have to add an adaptor to use other lenses, making it bigger as well.I think that was his main point. Hell I have lenses of my Fuji that throw that out the window as well. But there are smaller lens if I want to use them. Hell nobody is going to make a 50-400 and have it the size of a 50mm.
Last edited by jupitersolo; 04-05-2016 at 11:01 AM.
Hell I have lenses of my Fuji that throw that out the window as well. But there are smaller lens if I want to use them. Hell nobody is going to make a 50-400 and have it the size of a 50mm.
but that's just it... Sony DOES offer smaller lenses, obviously not as fast in aperture, but I guess that's physics for you. If you want a modern day auto focusing FAST full frame lenses, the size is going to go up, it is what it is. I just think it's funny how when Sony first came out with the a7 bodies, everyone whined and bitched about them not having fast lenses... now they are catering to those people and you STILL have people bitching about something else. At the end of the day, simply put: "Haters are going to hate". But that's fine... I choose to put my effort into the actual practice of photography, shooting and learning, and leave the trash talking to trolls on the internet. Do these people even shoot?
On another note, what are you guys using for camera straps? The one that came with the Sony blows donkey nuts and my Canon one is total overkill for the Sony.
Want something light weight, comfy, somewhat stylish, and ideally having storage for memory cards on it.
12-30-2015, 01:53 PM
) (click to enlarge)
At the end of the day, simply put: "Haters are going to hate". But that's fine... I choose to put my effort into the actual practice of photography, shooting and learning, and leave the trash talking to trolls on the internet. Do these people even shoot? 
